Parashat Hashavua DevarimHaftarah Isaiah 1:1-27Daf Yomi Chullin 77929 Judges 19 (230)Daily Mishnah Mishnah Kelim 17:16-17Daily Rambam Leavened and Unleavened Bread 7Daily Rambam (3 Chapters) Sacrificial Procedure 16-18Daf a Week Nedarim 90Halakhah Yomit Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayim 224:4-6Arukh HaShulchan Yomi Orach Chaim 318:47-54Tanakh Yomi Proverbs Seder 8Chok LeYisrael DevarimTanya Yomi 2 AvYerushalmi Yomi Jerusalem Talmud Bava Metzia 31

Daily Mishnah · Expert – Beit Midrash Analysis · Deep-Dive

Mishnah Chullin 7:1-2

Deep-DiveExpert – Beit Midrash AnalysisNovember 12, 2025

Sugya Map

The Mishnah in Chullin 7:1-2 meticulously delineates the scope and application of the prohibition of gid hanasheh (the sciatic nerve), a unique issur stemming from Yaakov Avinu's encounter with the angel. This sugya serves as a foundational text for understanding the intricate parameters of a mitzvah derived from a historical event, showcasing the breadth of halachic inquiry into its universal and particular applications.

Core Issue

The central issue is the precise definition and reach of the issur gid hanasheh, exploring its boundaries across various dimensions. Is it a universal prohibition, or are there specific contexts where it does not apply? How do we identify the gid itself, and what are the implications when it is mixed with permitted foods?

Nafka Mina(s)

The Mishnah presents a cascade of nafka mina(s), each revealing a facet of the issur:

  • Geographic and Temporal Scope: Does the issur apply solely in Eretz Yisrael or in the Diaspora (chutz la'aretz)? Is it dependent on the existence of the Beis Hamikdash? The Mishnah's blanket assertion – "נוהג בארץ ובח"ל בפני הבית ושלא בפני הבית" (Chullin 7:1) – establishes its universal applicability.
  • Animal Categorization: Does the prohibition differentiate between chullin (non-sacred) and mukdashim (sacrificial animals), domesticated (behemah) and undomesticated (chayah) animals, or the right and left thighs? The Mishnah affirms its application across all these categories.
  • Anatomical Specificity: The exclusion of birds, "מפני שאין לו כף" (Chullin 7:1), highlights the anatomical basis of the prohibition, tied to "כף הירך" (the spoon of the thigh) (Bereishis 32:33). This raises questions about species-specific anatomical features versus individual variations.
  • Fetal Status (Shalil): The machlokes between the Tanna Kamma (who holds it applies to a shalil) and Rabbi Yehuda (who exempts it) regarding a fetus in the womb, and consequently its chelev, forms a significant point of contention, touching upon the halachic status of a shalil itself (Chullin 7:1).
  • Credibility of Butchers (Ne'emanus): The debate between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis concerning the ne'emanus (credibility) of butchers to attest to the removal of gid hanasheh and forbidden chelev (Chullin 7:1) speaks to broader principles of halachic supervision and trust.
  • Interaction with Non-Jews: The leniency allowing one to send a thigh with gid hanasheh to a gentile, "מפני שמקומו ניכר" (Chullin 7:1), demonstrates the halachic concern for michshol (causing others to stumble) and its limits when the issur is easily identifiable.
  • Method of Removal and Shiur: The Mishnah details the required thoroughness of removal ("שיעקור הכל") and the shiur (measure) for chiyuv malkos (liability for lashes) – an k'zayis (olive-bulk), with Rabbi Yehuda dissenting on the latter in cases of bilateral consumption (Chullin 7:1-2). The concept of a chatzotzra (complete entity) overriding k'zayis is introduced.
  • Mixtures (Ta'am k'ikar): The Mishnah elaborates on the dinim of bitul b'ta'am (nullification by flavor) when gid hanasheh is cooked with permitted foods, introducing the paradigm of "בשר בלפת" (meat in a turnip) (Chullin 7:2), and extending this principle to other issurim like neveilah (carcass) and non-kosher fish.
  • Application to Non-Kosher Animals: The final machlokes between the Tanna Kamma and Rabbi Yehuda concerning the application of gid hanasheh to a treifah (non-kosher animal) (Chullin 7:2) delves into the nature of the issur – is it an independent prohibition, or is it contingent on the animal being mutar (permitted) for consumption in the first place?

Primary Sources

  • Mishnah Chullin 7:1-2: The core text under analysis.
  • Bereishis 32:33: The foundational narrative and scriptural source for the issur.
  • Gemara Chullin 90a, 91a, 92b, 93a, 96a, 98b, 99b, 100a, 101a: Extensive discussions in the Gemara elaborate on each point of the Mishnah, providing the underlying drashos, svaros, and halachic conclusions.

Full Experience in the App

Listen. Chat. Go deeper.

Audio playback, interactive chevruta, Hebrew tools, and every daily learning track — only in Derekh Learning.

Download on the App Store

Text Snapshot

The Mishnah Chullin 7:1-2 provides a comprehensive overview of the gid hanasheh prohibition.

Mishnah Chullin 7:1

גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה נוֹהֵג בָּאָרֶץ וּבְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ, בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת וְשֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת, בְּחֻלִּין וּבְמֻקְדָּשִׁים. וְנוֹהֵג בִּבְהֵמָה וּבְחַיָּה, בְּיָרֵךְ שֶׁל יָמִין וּבְיָרֵךְ שֶׁל שְׂמֹאל. וְאֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג בָּעוֹף, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ כָּף. וְנוֹהֵג בַּשָּׁלִיל. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג בַּשָּׁלִיל, וְכֵן חֶלְבּוֹ מֻתָּר. וְאֵין הַקַּצָּבִין נֶאֱמָנִין עַל גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: נֶאֱמָנִין עַל הַגִּיד וְעַל הַחֵלֶב. שׁוֹלֵחַ אָדָם יָרֵךְ לְנָכְרִי וְגִיד הַנָּשֶׁה בּוֹ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמְּקוֹמוֹ נִיכָּר. הַמְנַקֵּר אֶת הַגִּיד צָרִיךְ שֶׁיַּעֲקוֹר אֶת הַכֹּל. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: כְּדֵי לְקַיֵּם מִצְוַת עֲקִירָה. הָאוֹכֵל כְּזַיִת מִגִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה, סוֹפֵג אַרְבָּעִים. אָכַל אֶת כֻּלּוֹ וְאֵין בּוֹ כְּזַיִת, חַיָּב. אָכַל כְּזַיִת מִזֶּה וּכְזַיִת מִזֶּה, סוֹפֵג שְׁמוֹנִים. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ סוֹפֵג אֶלָּא אַרְבָּעִים. [https://www.sefaria.org/Mishnah_Chullin.7.1?lang=bi&aliyot=all]

  • Dikduk/Leshon Nuance:
    • The repetitive use of "נוהג ב... ונוהג ב..." (applies in... and applies in...) creates a rhythmic, exhaustive enumeration, emphasizing the broad scope of the issur. It systematically negates potential limiting factors.
    • "מפני שאין לו כף" (due to the fact that it has no spoon) provides a direct, causal explanation for the exception of birds, rooting the halacha in anatomical reality. This is crucial for understanding the mekor and geder of the issur.
    • The phrasing "וכן חלבו מותר" (and similarly its fat is permitted) following R' Yehuda's opinion on shalil highlights a logical consequence: if the shalil itself is not subject to gid hanasheh, then its chelev (which is otherwise forbidden in a behemah but permitted in a chayah) would also follow the shalil's permitted status. This connects the din of gid hanasheh to other issurim like chelev.
    • The verb "סוֹפֵג" (incurs/receives) for lashes is standard Mishnaic terminology, indicating a liability for malkos (Biblical lashes). The distinction between "סוֹפֵג ארבעים" and "סוֹפֵג שמונים" in the machlokes of R' Yehuda highlights a fundamental debate on whether the two gidim constitute one issur or two distinct issurim.
    • "אָכַל אֶת כֻּלּוֹ וְאֵין בּוֹ כְּזַיִת, חַיָּב" (If one ate an entire sciatic nerve and it does not constitute an olive-bulk, he is nevertheless liable) introduces the principle of "chatzotzra" or "davar sheyesh bo mamash" – that a complete, significant entity can trigger liability even if it doesn't meet the standard k'zayis shiur for achilah. This is a significant halachic principle with broader applications.

Mishnah Chullin 7:2

יָרֵךְ שֶׁנִּתְבַּשְּׁלָה וְגִיד הַנָּשֶׁה בְּתוֹכָהּ, אִם יֶשׁ בּוֹ כְּדֵי לְהַטְעִים, הֲרֵי זוֹ אֲסוּרָה. וּבְכַמָּה מְשַׁעֲרִין אוֹתוֹ? כְּבָשָׂר בְּלֶפֶת. גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה שֶׁנִּתְבַּשֵּׁל עִם הַגִּידִין, כְּשֶׁהוּא מַכִּירוֹ וְנוֹטְלוֹ, אֵין בּוֹ כְּדֵי לְהַטְעִים, אֵלּוּ מֻתָּרִין. וְאִם לָאו, הַכֹּל אֲסוּרִין. אֲבָל הָרוֹטֶב אֵינוֹ אָסוּר אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן יֶשׁ בּוֹ כְּדֵי לְהַטְעִים. וְכֵן חֲתִיכַת נְבֵלָה וַחֲתִיכַת דָּג טָמֵא שֶׁנִּתְבַּשְּׁלוּ עִם הַחֲתִיכוֹת, כְּשֶׁהוּא מַכִּירוֹ וְנוֹטְלוֹ, אֵין בּוֹ כְּדֵי לְהַטְעִים, אֵלּוּ מֻתָּרִין. וְאִם לָאו, הַכֹּל אֲסוּרִין. אֲבָל הָרוֹטֶב אֵינוֹ אָסוּר אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן יֶשׁ בּוֹ כְּדֵי לְהַטְעִים. נוֹהֵג בִּטְהוֹרָה, וְאֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג בִּטְרֵפָה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אַף בִּטְרֵפָה. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: וַהֲלֹא גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה אָסוּר לִבְנֵי יַעֲקֹב, וַעֲדַיִן בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה מֻתֶּרֶת לָהֶם. אָמְרוּ לוֹ: בְּסִינַי נֶאֶמְרָה, וּבִמְקוֹמָהּ נִכְתְּבָה. [https://www.sefaria.org/Mishnah_Chullin.7.2?lang=bi&aliyot=all]

  • Dikduk/Leshon Nuance:
    • The paradigm "כְּבָשָׂר בְּלֶפֶת" (as meat in a turnip) is a classic halachic idiom for measuring bitul b'ta'am (nullification of flavor). It refers to the ratio required for a forbidden item to impart its flavor to a permitted item, with the assumption that meat (the gid in this case) is more potent than a turnip, providing a stringent measure.
    • The structure "כְּשֶׁהוּא מַכִּירוֹ וְנוֹטְלוֹ... וְאִם לָאו, הַכֹּל אֲסוּרִין" (When one identifies it and removes it... and if not, all are forbidden) distinguishes between a mixture where the issur is identifiable and one where it is not. If identifiable, bitul b'shishim (nullification in 60 parts) or bitul b'ta'am applies to the remaining mixture. If not, the principle of chashash (concern) for safek issur (doubtful prohibition) applies, rendering all pieces forbidden. This is a fundamental distinction in hilchos ta'arovos (laws of mixtures).
    • The repeated phrase "אֲבָל הָרוֹטֶב אֵינוֹ אָסוּר אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן יֶשׁ בּוֹ כְּדֵי לְהַטְעִים" (but the broth is forbidden only if there is enough to impart flavor) establishes a consistent principle: liquid mixtures are always judged by bitul b'ta'am, regardless of whether the solid issur is identifiable. This is because the issur is fully dispersed in the liquid.
    • Rabbi Yehuda's argument regarding treifah ("וַהֲלֹא גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה אָסוּר לִבְנֵי יַעֲקֹב, וַעֲדַיִן בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה מֻתֶּרֶת לָהֶם") employs a historical-logical kal v'chomer (a fortiori argument): if gid hanasheh was forbidden to Yaakov's children when treifah (or non-kosher animals) were still permitted to them (before Matan Torah), then it should remain forbidden in treifah even now. This is a powerful use of historical precedent to establish a halachic principle.
    • The Rabbis' retort, "בְּסִינַי נֶאֶמְרָה, וּבִמְקוֹמָהּ נִכְתְּבָה" (It was stated at Sinai, but it was written in its place), is a classic drasha for prohibitions that predate Matan Torah but whose full halachic force and scope only became clear or fully binding at Sinai. It refutes R' Yehuda's kal v'chomer by asserting a later, more definitive origin for the issur's current parameters. This phrase is used in several contexts to explain the relationship between halacha l'Moshe miSinai and narratives in Tanach.

Readings

The Mishnah's terse statements on gid hanasheh open vast avenues for Rishonim and Acharonim to unpack their meaning, underlying svaros, and halachic ramifications. We will delve into Rambam's Perush HaMishnayos and Tosafot Yom Tov's commentary on it, alongside the Ran, to appreciate the depth of this sugya.

Rambam, Perush HaMishnayos, Chullin 7:1

The Rambam's commentary on our Mishnah is characteristically precise and illuminating, often providing the svara (reasoning) behind the halacha and clarifying potential ambiguities.

Chiddush 1: Mukdashim and the Tappuach

The Mishnah states, "ונוהג... ובמוקדשים" (Chullin 7:1), meaning the prohibition applies even to sacrificial animals. Rambam expands: "מה שאמר ובמוקדשין ואפילו עולה ששורפין אותה על גבי המזבח מוציאו ומשליכו על האפר המתוקן באמצע המזבח והוא הנקרא תפוח." [https://www.sefaria.org/Rambam_on_Mishnah_Chullin.7.1.1?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en] Here, Rambam clarifies that even an Olah (burnt offering), which is entirely consumed by fire on the altar, must have its gid hanasheh removed. This is a significant chidush because the typical concern with issurim is their consumption by humans. If the Olah is entirely for HaShem (or rather, for the altar's fire), why does the human-centric prohibition of gid hanasheh apply? Rambam's explanation, rooted in the Gemara (Chullin 96a), stems from the phrase "לא יאכלו בני ישראל" (Bereishis 32:33). The Mizbeach (altar) is considered k'Yisrael (like a Jew) in terms of its consumption. Thus, anything forbidden to Jews is also forbidden to the Mizbeach. Furthermore, the Gemara (Chullin 96a) also derives from Yechezkel 45:16, "מאתכם יהיה כל הקרבן למלך לישראל," that "מן המותר לישראל" – the offerings must be from that which is permitted to Israel. Since gid hanasheh is forbidden to Israel, it is unfit for an offering. Rambam further details the practical application: the removed gid is "משליכו על האפר המתוקן באמצע המזבח והוא הנקרא תפוח." This refers to the pile of ashes on the altar, known as the Tappuach. This demonstrates the meticulousness of halacha even in the context of Temple service, ensuring that no forbidden item, even one destined for non-human consumption, remains part of the sacred offering. This din highlights the absolute nature of the issur of gid hanasheh, extending beyond mere human ingestion to the sanctity of the Korbanos.

Chiddush 2: Anatomical Basis for Birds – The Kaf Ha'Yarech

Regarding the exclusion of birds, the Mishnah states, "מפני שאין לו כף." Rambam elaborates: "רוצה לומר אין לו כף ירך דומה לשל אדם שהוא עגול ואם יזדמן מין עוף או אחד מאיזה מין שיהיה שכף ירכו עגול הרי זה גיד הנשה שלו אסור." [https://www.sefaria.org/Rambam_on_Mishnah_Chullin.7.1.1?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en] The Torah's description "אשר על כף הירך" (Bereishis 32:33) implies a specific anatomical feature. Rambam interprets "כף ירך" not just as a general thigh, but specifically a round "spoon of the thigh," similar to a human's. His chidush is that the halacha is not species-specific (i.e., "birds are exempt"), but rather anatomically specific. If a bird, or any other creature, were to possess a kaf yarech that is "עגול" (round), its gid hanasheh would be forbidden. This demonstrates Rambam's rationalistic approach, grounding halacha in observable physical characteristics rather than arbitrary species classifications. It transforms a seemingly species-based exemption into a principle based on the gader (definition) of the gid itself.

Chiddush 3: Chelev Ha'Gid and Minhag Yisrael

The Mishnah, in Rabbi Yehuda's opinion, states regarding a shalil that "וכן חלבו מותר." Rambam notes: "רוצה לומר חלב גיד הנשה והוא שמנונית שלו וזהו לדברי הכל אבל אמרו ישראל קדושים הן ונהגו בו איסור רוצה לומר בשמנונית של גיד." [https://www.sefaria.org/Rambam_on_Mishnah_Chullin.7.1.1?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en] Rambam clarifies that "חלבו" here refers to the fat of the gid hanasheh itself, not the general chelev of the shalil. He states that midin (by strict law), this fat is permitted ("לדברי הכל"). However, he immediately introduces the concept of minhag Yisrael (Jewish custom): "אבל אמרו ישראל קדושים הן ונהגו בו איסור" (but the holy people of Israel said, and they adopted a prohibition regarding it). This is a profound statement on the interplay between halacha min ha'Torah (Torah law) and minhag (custom). Minhag can create a chumra (stringency) that effectively becomes binding, even where the strict din permits. The phrase "ישראל קדושים הן" (Israel is holy) is a classic gemaraic expression (e.g., Yoma 39a) to explain the adoption of stringencies beyond the letter of the law, out of a desire for greater holiness and separation from issur.

Chiddush 4: Psak on Shalil

Rambam concludes his commentary on the shalil debate: "ושליל הוא העובר הנמצא בגוף קודם שלמותו ואין הלכה כר"מ ולא כרבי יהודה." [https://www.sefaria.org/Rambam_on_Mishnah_Chullin.7.1.1?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en] This psak is initially puzzling. The Mishnah presents two views: the Tanna Kamma (who holds gid hanasheh applies to a shalil) and R' Yehuda (who holds it does not). If Rambam rules "לא כר"מ ולא כרבי יהודה," what is the halacha? This is a point of significant discussion among Acharonim, as we will see, especially since the general psak on shalil is k'R' Yehuda that it is permitted by its mother's shechita. This psak implies a unique stringency for gid hanasheh in a shalil that requires further elucidation.

Tosafot Yom Tov on Mishnah Chullin 7:1 (quoting Ran)

The Tosafot Yom Tov (TYT) often elaborates on Rambam's commentary, sometimes defending it, sometimes raising questions, and frequently bringing in other Rishonim. His commentary is invaluable for tracing the sugya's development.

Chiddush 1: Rationale for Mishnah's Enumeration

On the Mishnah's extensive list of applications ("נוהג בארץ וכו'"), TYT quotes the Ran: "כולהו תננהו. משום דאיצטריך למיתני בחולין ובמוקדשים. הר"ן." [https://www.sefaria.org/Tosafot_Yom_Tov_on_Mishnah_Chullin.7.1.2?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en] The Ran, as cited by TYT, provides a structural explanation for the Mishnah's seemingly exhaustive, and at times redundant, enumeration of cases where gid hanasheh applies (Eretz Yisrael/Chutz La'aretz, Beis Hamikdash/absence, etc.). Many of these might seem self-evident. However, the Ran argues that the Mishnah had to state its application to chullin (non-sacred animals) and mukdashim (sacrificial animals) because this point is not obvious (especially for mukdashim where the meat is not consumed by humans, as discussed above). Once these two necessary cases are stated, the Mishnah, for stylistic and comprehensive reasons, lists the other categories as well. This chidush is a classic lomdishe approach to understanding Mishnaic structure: identify the non-obvious cases that necessitate a statement, and the rest often follow for completeness or rhetorical effect.

Chiddush 2: Practicality of Olah Removal on the Altar

Expanding on Rambam's point about removing gid hanasheh from an Olah, TYT brings the Gemara's practical details: "ומ"ש הר"ב ומשליכו על האפר כו' דמשום הקריבהו נא לפחתך א"א להעלות הירך כשהיא מפורעת. הלכך מעלהו כמות שהיא שלמה ואח"כ חולצו בראש המזבח." [https://www.sefaria.org/Tosafot_Yom_Tov_on_Mishnah_Chullin.7.1.3?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en] This passage, again from the Gemara (Chullin 96a), addresses a practical dilemma. While gid hanasheh must be removed from an Olah, the verse "הקריבהו נא לפחתך" (Malachi 1:8) is interpreted as a prohibition against offering a blemished or disfigured korban to HaShem (or rather, an offering that would be considered disrespectful if given to a human dignitary). If the gid were removed before the thigh was brought to the Mizbeach, the thigh would be "מפורעת" (disfigured or defaced), which is not respectful. Therefore, the halacha is to bring the thigh intact to the altar, and then remove the gid "בראש המזבח" (on the top of the altar) before it is fully consumed by fire. This is a brilliant terutz (resolution) that balances two conflicting halachic demands: the issur of gid hanasheh and the kavod (honor) due to the Korban and the Mizbeach. It shows how halacha navigates complex scenarios with practical, nuanced solutions.

Chiddush 3: The Kaf Ha'Yarech and Teiku

TYT directly addresses Rambam's chidush about the round kaf ha'yarech for birds: "כתב הר"ב ואם נמצא עוף שיש לו כף עגול ג"ה שלו אסור. דבעי רבי ירמיה אי בתר דידיה אזלינן אי בתר מיניה וקאי בתיקו. ומיבעי ליה נמי. בבהמה ולא עגיל. וקאי נמי בתיקו." [https://www.sefaria.org/Tosafot_Yom_Tov_on_Mishnah_Chullin.7.1.5?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en] TYT quotes Rav Yeremya's safek (doubt) from the Gemara (Chullin 91a) directly addressing Rambam's conditional chidush. The question is: do we follow the rov (majority) of the species (e.g., most birds lack a round kaf) or the individual (if this specific bird has one)? The Gemara states this safek remains a teiku (unresolved). This means that le'maaseh (in practice), we would treat such a bird's gid as forbidden due to safek de'oraita l'chumra (a doubt concerning a Biblical prohibition is treated stringently). Furthermore, Rav Yeremya raises the converse safek: what about a behemah (animal) that doesn't have a round kaf? Does its gid become permitted? This also remains a teiku. These teikus illustrate the limits of halachic extrapolation and the need for clarity from Har Sinai (Mount Sinai) or prophetic tradition when anatomical variations challenge established categories.

Chiddush 4: The Ran's Critique of Rambam on Shalil

This is perhaps the most significant chidush by TYT in this section, as he brings the Ran's strong critique of Rambam's psak on shalil: "ונוהג בשליל . פי' הר"ב בן ט' חי הנמצא בבהמה. ומסיים הר"ן ר"מ לטעמיה דס"ל דאינו ניתר בשחיטת אמו כדאיתא בפרק בהמה המקשה [משנה ה'] הלכך חשיב בהמה בפני עצמו וחלבו וגידו אסורים. ור"י לטעמיה דאמר ניתר בשחיטת אמו. הלכך קרינן ביה בהמה בבהמה תאכלו. וקיימא לן כר' יהודה בשחיטה. דשליל אפי' בן ט' ניתר בשחיטת אמו [דהא בל' חכמים שנאו רבי] חלבו וגידו נמי שרי. ולא נתחוורו דברי הרמב"ם דפסק הכא דלא כר' יהודה. ע"כ. וגם אחרים השיבו על הרמב"ם בזה. אך הרשב"א הביאו ב"י סי' ס"ד פסק ג"כ בגידו דאסור משום דסתמא דמתני' מתניא הכי וע"ש." [https://www.sefaria.org/Tosafot_Yom_Tov_on_Mishnah_Chullin.7.1.7?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en] TYT quotes the Ran (Chullin 90a) who states that R' Meir's opinion (that gid hanasheh applies to a shalil) is consistent with his broader shitah (stance) that a shalil is not permitted by its mother's shechitah (i.e., it requires its own shechitah). Conversely, R' Yehuda's opinion (that it does not apply) is consistent with his shitah that a shalil is permitted by its mother's shechitah. The Ran then asserts that the established halacha is k'R' Yehuda that a shalil, even a nine-month-old live fetus, is permitted by its mother's shechitah. Therefore, logically, its chelev and gid should also be permitted. This leads the Ran to strongly conclude that "ולא נתחוורו דברי הרמב"ם" – Rambam's words (his psak that it applies to a shalil) are not clear or easily understood, as they contradict the general psak on shalil. However, TYT doesn't leave it there. He notes that "גם אחרים השיבו על הרמב"ם בזה." Yet, he immediately brings a defense for Rambam from the Rashba (Toras HaBayit, Beit Yosef YD 64): Rashba also rules that gid hanasheh applies to a shalil, and his reasoning is that the "סתמא דמתניתין" (the unattributed statement in the Mishnah) asserts this ("ונוהג בשליל"). In situations where the stam Mishnah directly contradicts a named Tanna for whom the halacha generally follows (like R' Yehuda), the stam Mishnah can sometimes carry more weight, especially concerning issurim. This is a critical point in psak methodology: how to weigh a general principle (e.g., halacha k'R' Yehuda) against a specific, unattributed statement in the Mishnah. The Rashba's chidush is that the stam Mishnah indicates the primary halacha for gid hanasheh specifically in a shalil, irrespective of the general din of shalil itself.

Friction

The Mishnah and its commentaries present several points of conceptual tension, where seemingly disparate halachic principles collide. We will explore two prominent kushyot and their terutzim.

Kushya 1: The Enigma of Gid HaNsheh in a Shalil

The Mishnah states, "ונוהג בשליל" (and it applies to a fetus), followed by Rabbi Yehuda's dissent, "רבי יהודה אומר: אינו נוהג בשליל, וכן חלבו מותר" (Rabbi Yehuda says: It does not apply to a fetus; and similarly, its fat is permitted). As discussed in the readings, the halacha generally follows Rabbi Yehuda regarding shalil, specifically that a shalil (even a nine-month-old live one) is permitted by its mother's shechitah – "ניתר בשחיטת אמו" (Chullin 74a). If the shalil itself is rendered permitted through the mother's shechitah, then logically, all its components, including its gid hanasheh and chelev, should also be permitted. This creates a strong kushya against the Rambam's ruling (as interpreted by many, and as explicitly stated by the Ran) that gid hanasheh applies to a shalil. How can the gid be forbidden if the shalil is otherwise permitted?

Terutz 1: The Weight of the Stam Mishnah (Rashba's Approach)

The strongest terutz in defense of the psak that gid hanasheh applies to a shalil, despite the general din of nitar b'shechitah, is advanced by the Rashba (Toras HaBayit, Beit Yosef YD 64), as cited by the Tosafot Yom Tov. The Rashba posits that the unattributed statement ("סתמא דמתניתין") in the Mishnah, "ונוהג בשליל," carries significant weight. While the general rule is that halacha k'R' Yehuda in cases of shalil and shechitah, this specific stam Mishnah explicitly includes shalil in the gid hanasheh prohibition.

The underlying svara is that a stam Mishnah often represents the final, authoritative halacha even when it contradicts a named Tanna whose view is generally accepted. This is particularly true in matters of issur v'heter (prohibitions and permissions), where the Chachamim tend towards stringency. The prohibition of gid hanasheh is unique, rooted in a specific historical event involving Yaakov Avinu, and perhaps carries a distinct stringency. Therefore, even if the shalil as a whole is nitar b'shechitah, the Torah or Halacha l'Moshe miSinai might have carved out an exception specifically for the gid hanasheh within it. The stam Mishnah serves as the authoritative voice for this specific stringency.

This terutz implies a nuanced understanding of nitar b'shechitah. While shechitah permits the basar (meat) of the shalil, it may not override every distinct issur within it. The gid hanasheh, due to its unique status as a "davar bifnei atzmo" (an entity unto itself) and its specific mekor (source) in Bereishis, might retain its issur regardless of the shechitah. This is similar to how chelev (forbidden fat) and dam (blood) remain forbidden even after shechitah makes the meat permissible. While gid hanasheh is a gid and not chelev, its distinct issur status could render it impervious to the general permitting effect of shechitah on the shalil's meat.

Terutz 2: The Geder of Nitar B'Shechitah (Ramban's Potential Approach)

Another way to approach this kushya, though less explicitly stated in the immediately provided texts but hinted at in broader discussions of shalil, is to delve deeper into the geder (definition/nature) of nitar b'shechitah. The Ramban (Chullin 74a, s.v. "אמר רב יהודה") discusses that shechitah is effective for the shalil because it is considered "minyanim shel imo" (part of its mother's count/body). However, gid hanasheh is not merely "part" of the animal; it's a specific anatomical structure targeted by a unique issur.

Perhaps nitar b'shechitah operates on the general status of the basar (meat) to make it edible, removing its neveilah status. However, it does not inherently nullify all issurim that might reside within that basar. Just as shechitah does not permit the dam or chelev of the animal, it might not permit a distinct gid hanasheh within the shalil. The issur gid hanasheh is not about the basar being neveilah; it's an independent prohibition on a specific nerve. The shalil acquires the heter (permission) of its mother's meat, but the gid hanasheh inside it retains its inherent issur, similar to a foreign object (like a forbidden piece of meat) cooked inside a kosher dish that retains its issur. This terutz relies on viewing the gid hanasheh as an entity distinct enough to maintain its issur even when its surrounding environment (the shalil's meat) becomes permitted.

Kushya 2: The Olah and the Redundancy of Gid HaNsheh Removal

The Mishnah states that gid hanasheh applies "ובמוקדשים" (Chullin 7:1), which Rambam clarifies includes an Olah that is entirely burned on the altar. The Gemara (Chullin 96a) and Rishonim (Rambam, TYT) confirm that the gid must be removed even from an Olah. The kushya is: why is it necessary to remove gid hanasheh from an Olah? The entire offering is consumed by fire on the Mizbeach; no human will ever eat it. The prohibition of gid hanasheh is explicitly an issur achilah (prohibition of eating) – "לא יאכלו בני ישראל את גיד הנשה" (Bereishis 32:33). If the gid is not eaten by humans, what halachic purpose does its removal serve? This seems like a redundant or unnecessary act.

Terutz 1: Mizbeach K'Yisrael and Min HaMutar L'Yisrael

The primary terutz, found in the Gemara (Chullin 96a) and adopted by Rambam and other Rishonim, is multifaceted. Firstly, the Mizbeach (altar) is considered "כמזבח שאוכל" (like an altar that eats) and, more specifically, "המזבח כמזבח" (the altar is like a person who eats) or "המזבח כפרצופא" (the altar is like a person's face/presence). This means that the Mizbeach's "consumption" of the korban is treated halachically akin to human consumption for the purpose of issurim. Therefore, any item forbidden for Jews to eat is also forbidden for the Mizbeach to "eat."

Secondly, the Gemara derives from Yechezkel 45:16, "מאתכם יהיה כל הקרבן למלך לישראל," the principle of "מן המותר לישראל" (from that which is permitted to Israel). This drasha establishes that any korban brought by Israel must be composed of items that are inherently permissible for Israel to consume. Since gid hanasheh is not permitted to Israel, a thigh containing it is fundamentally flawed as a korban. It's not about the physical act of eating by a human; it's about the inherent status of the offering as "food" for HaShem that must meet the highest standards of kashrus and purity, as defined by Torah law. The issur is on the entity itself when it is designated as "food" for HaShem.

This terutz elevates the issur gid hanasheh beyond a mere dietary restriction, extending its domain to the sacred realm of Temple service and the intrinsic quality of offerings.

Terutz 2: Hakriveihu Na L'Pachatecha and Kavod HaKorban

A secondary, yet crucial, terutz (also from Chullin 96a, cited by TYT) addresses the practical aspect of removing the gid. The Gemara states that one must not bring a disfigured korban to the Mizbeach. This is derived from the verse in Malachi 1:8, "הקריבהו נא לפחתך" (Present it, I pray you, to your governor). Just as one would not present a blemished or disfigured gift to an earthly governor, so too one must not present a flawed korban to HaShem.

If the gid hanasheh were removed before the thigh was brought to the Mizbeach, the thigh would be "מפורעת" (disfigured or defaced). This would be a zilzul (disgrace) to the korban. Therefore, the halacha dictates a compromise: the thigh is brought whole to the Mizbeach, preserving its integrity and kavod. Once on the altar, "אח"כ חולצו בראש המזבח" (then he extracts it on the top of the altar). This ensures that both halachic requirements are met: the gid hanasheh is removed (satisfying "מן המותר לישראל" and Mizbeach k'Yisrael), and the korban is offered with dignity, not disfigured prematurely.

This terutz highlights the intricate balance in halacha between conflicting mitzvot. The issur of gid hanasheh must be upheld, but not at the expense of the kavod and proper presentation of the Korban. The solution demonstrates a deep understanding of practical and spiritual considerations in halachic application.

Intertext

The sugya of gid hanasheh in Mishnah Chullin 7:1-2 is deeply interwoven with a rich tapestry of Jewish texts, from its scriptural origins to its practical codification. Exploring these intertextual connections reveals the multifaceted nature of this mitzvah.

1. Bereishis 32:33 – The Foundational Narrative

The entire prohibition of gid hanasheh is rooted in the narrative of Yaakov Avinu's struggle with the angel:

"וַיִּגַּע בְּכַף יֶרֶךְ יַעֲקֹב וַתֵּקַע כַּף יֶרֶךְ יַעֲקֹב בְּהֵאָבְקוֹ עִמּוֹ... עַל כֵּן לֹא יֹאכְלוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה אֲשֶׁר עַל כַּף הַיָּרֵךְ עַד הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה כִּי נָגַע בְּכַף יֶרֶךְ יַעֲקֹב בְּגִיד הַנָּשֶׁה." (Bereishis 32:26, 33) [https://www.sefaria.org/Bereishit.32.26-33?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en] This verse is the mekor (source) for the issur. The Mishnah's discussion on the "כף ירך" (spoon of the thigh) for birds directly relates to this phrasing. The Torah connects the issur to a physical injury sustained by Yaakov, implying a memorial aspect. The phrase "עד היום הזה" (unto this day) signifies its perpetual nature. The Rabbis in our Mishnah (Chullin 7:2) even cite this historical context in their debate with Rabbi Yehuda regarding treifah, arguing that while the event occurred then, the full halachic scope was given at Sinai – "בסיני נאמרה ובמקומם נכתבה." This highlights the dual nature of many mitzvot: an historical genesis and a formal halachic promulgation. The sugya meticulously details the anatomical and practical implications of this single scriptural verse.

2. Gemara Chullin 90a – The Status of Shalil

The machlokes in our Mishnah regarding shalil (fetus) is a microcosm of a larger sugya concerning the halachic status of a fetus. The Gemara in Chullin 90a is the primary source for the din of shalil in general:

"אמר רב יהודה: הלכה כרבי יהודה דאמר שליט ניתר בשחיטת אמו." (Chullin 90a) [https://www.sefaria.org/Chullin.90a.13?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en] This Gemara establishes that halacha k'R' Yehuda that a shalil is permitted by its mother's shechitah. This is the core of the kushya against Rambam's psak on gid hanasheh in a shalil. The Gemara elaborates on the conditions for this permission, for instance, if the shalil is "בן תשעה חי" (a nine-month-old live fetus). Our Mishnah, by presenting the Tanna Kamma's view that gid hanasheh does apply to a shalil, sets up a tension with this broader halachic principle. The Rashba's terutz of "סתמא דמתניתין" resolves this tension by giving precedence to the specific stam Mishnah in our context over the general halacha for shalil. This exemplifies how specific halachot can diverge from general principles due to unique scriptural or traditional interpretations.

3. Yoma 39a – Yisrael Kedoshim Heim and Minhag

Rambam's comment about "ישראל קדושים הן ונהגו בו איסור" (Israel is holy, and they adopted a prohibition regarding it) concerning the fat of gid hanasheh (which is midin permitted) finds its parallel in the Gemara Yoma 39a. The Gemara there discusses various chumrot (stringencies) adopted by Klal Yisrael:

"אמר רבא: ישראל קדושים הם, ואין אוכלים חלב גבינה עם בשר." (Yoma 39a) [https://www.sefaria.org/Yoma.39a.1?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en] Rava states that "Israel is holy, and they do not eat cheese fat with meat." This is in the context of chalav akum (milk from a non-Jew) and the minhag to avoid it. The phrase "ישראל קדושים הם" is a recurring motif to explain minhagim that elevate practice beyond the strict letter of the law. In our sugya, this applies to the chelev gid hanasheh. While the fat of the gid itself is not forbidden midin (it's not chelev in the strict sense that carries karet, nor is it gid hanasheh itself), Klal Yisrael chose to be stringent. This demonstrates the power of communal minhag to shape halachic practice, creating issurim miderabanan (rabbinic prohibitions) or at least strong chumrot based on a desire for spiritual elevation and separation.

4. Pesachim 25b – Issur Achilah vs. Issur Hana'ah

The debate over removing gid hanasheh from an Olah (burnt offering), which is not eaten by humans, touches upon the broader halachic distinction between issur achilah (prohibition of eating) and issur hana'ah (prohibition of benefit). While gid hanasheh is primarily an issur achilah, the Gemara (Chullin 96a) extends its application to the Mizbeach by stating "מזבח כמזבח" (the altar is like one who eats) or "מן המותר לישראל." This is analogous to discussions in Pesachim 25b regarding chametz on Pesach:

"איסורי הנאה נינהו, ואיסורי אכילה נינהו." (Pesachim 25b) [https://www.sefaria.org/Pesachim.25b.4?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en] The Gemara there discusses various prohibitions, distinguishing between those that forbid only consumption and those that forbid any benefit. While gid hanasheh is not an issur hana'ah (one can, for instance, feed it to a gentile as per our Mishnah), its application to the Mizbeach implies a sophisticated understanding of "eating" that extends beyond human biological ingestion. It suggests that for sacred purposes, the Mizbeach is subject to issurim as if it were a sentient being consuming the offering. This broadens the conceptual framework of issur achilah to encompass ritual "consumption" by the Divine, rather than limiting it to human digestive processes.

5. Rambam, Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 8:1-10 – Codified Halacha

The Mishnah's detailed rules are codified by Rambam in Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot, Chapter 8. This is the ultimate psak halacha deriving from our sugya:

"גיד הנשה נוהג בארץ ובח"ל, בפני הבית ושלא בפני הבית, בחולין ובמוקדשים, בבהמה ובחיה, בימין ובשמאל." (Rambam, Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 8:1) [https://www.sefaria.org/Rambam%2C_Forbidden_Foods.8.1?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en] Rambam's codification follows the Tanna Kamma's views on most points, establishing the universal application of gid hanasheh. He explicitly rules that it applies to a shalil (8:3), aligning with the stam Mishnah despite the Ran's kushya. He details the removal process, the shiurim for malkos, and the dinim of mixtures (8:7-8:9), all directly from our Mishnah. He also codifies that it does not apply to non-kosher animals (8:10), following the Rabbis against R' Yehuda. This demonstrates how the rigorous analytical process of the Gemara and Rishonim culminates in a clear, practical halachic framework for daily living, translating the Mishnaic debates into definitive rulings.

Psak/Practice

The intricate discussions in Mishnah Chullin 7:1-2 and its commentaries crystallize into concrete halachic practice, guiding Jewish dietary laws concerning gid hanasheh. The psak generally follows the anonymous Tanna Kamma in most instances, with Rabbi Yehuda's dissenting opinions often rejected.

Universal Application and Exceptions

The psak unequivocally affirms the Mishnah's opening statement: gid hanasheh applies "בארץ ובח"ל, בפני הבית ושלא בפני הבית, בחולין ובמוקדשים, בבהמה ובחיה, בימין ובשמאל." (Chullin 7:1; Rambam, Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 8:1). This establishes its universal and perpetual nature. The only exception is for birds, "מפני שאין לו כף" (Chullin 7:1). While Rambam suggested a conditional application based on a "round spoon of the thigh," the teiku in the Gemara (Chullin 91a) means that le'maaseh, we follow the majority of the species, and since birds generally lack this feature, they are exempt.

The Status of Shalil

Regarding a shalil (fetus), the psak is complex. While the general halacha is k'R' Yehuda that a shalil is "ניתר בשחיטת אמו" (permitted by its mother's slaughter) (Chullin 90a), when it comes to gid hanasheh, the psak follows the stam Mishnah (Chullin 7:1) that it does apply to a shalil. This is the position of Rambam (Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 8:3) and Rashba (Toras HaBayit), despite the Ran's kushya. Therefore, in practice, the gid hanasheh must be removed from a shalil. This demonstrates a meta-psak heuristic where a specific stam Mishnah can override a general halacha k'R' Yehuda, particularly in matters of issur v'heter where stringency is preferred.

Butchers' Credibility (Ne'emanus)

The halacha follows the Rabbis (Chullin 7:1) that butchers are deemed credible regarding the removal of gid hanasheh and chelev (Rambam, Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 8:4). This is a significant point of practical trust within the kashrus system. However, this ne'emanus is contingent on the butcher being 'baki v'ragil' (expert and accustomed) in the laws and practice of nikkur (removing forbidden parts) and being yerei Shamayim (God-fearing). In modern kashrus systems, strict supervision (under a Mashgiach) often supplements or, in some cases, replaces sole reliance on the butcher's ne'emanus, especially in large-scale operations.

Method of Removal and Shiur

The psak follows the Tanna Kamma (Chullin 7:1) that "הַמְנַקֵּר אֶת הַגִּיד צָרִיךְ שֶׁיַּעֲקוֹר אֶת הַכֹּל" (one who removes the sciatic nerve must scrape away the flesh in the area surrounding the nerve to ensure that he will remove all of it) (Rambam, Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 8:5). Rabbi Yehuda's leniency is rejected. This ensures thorough removal. For chiyuv malkos (liability for lashes), the psak is that eating an k'zayis (olive-bulk) incurs forty lashes. If one eats the entire gid even if it's less than a k'zayis, one is still liable ("חַיָּב") due to the principle of "chatzotzra" (a complete entity) (Rambam, Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 8:6). If one eats a k'zayis from both gidim, one incurs eighty lashes, following the Tanna Kamma against R' Yehuda (Rambam, Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 8:6). This indicates that the two gidim are considered two distinct issurim.

Mixtures (Ta'am k'ikar)

The psak on mixtures unequivocally adopts the principle of bitul b'ta'am (nullification by flavor) using the "בשר בלפת" (meat in a turnip) paradigm (Chullin 7:2; Rambam, Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 8:7-8). If the gid imparts flavor, the mixture is forbidden. If the gid is identifiable in a mixture of solids, it is removed, and the rest is permitted if there's no flavor transfer. If not identifiable, all pieces are forbidden due to safek issur. Broth, however, is always judged by flavor transfer, as the issur is fully dispersed. This is a foundational principle in hilchos ta'arovos.

Non-Kosher Animals (Treifah)

The psak follows the Rabbis (Chullin 7:2) that gid hanasheh does not apply to treifah (non-kosher animals) (Rambam, Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 8:10). The Rabbis' argument, "בסיני נאמרה, ובמקומם נכתבה," is accepted, indicating that the full scope of the issur was defined at Sinai, and it applies only to otherwise kosher animals. This means that for a non-kosher animal, the gid is simply part of an already forbidden entity, and doesn't constitute an additional prohibition.

Meta-Psak Heuristics

The sugya provides several insights into psak methodology:

  1. Weight of Stam Mishnah: A stam Mishnah can carry significant weight, sometimes overriding a general rule or the opinion of a named Tanna, especially in issurim.
  2. Role of Minhag: Minhag (custom) can create halachic stringencies beyond the strict din, driven by "ישראל קדושים הם."
  3. Balancing Mitzvot: Halacha often finds nuanced ways to balance conflicting mitzvot, as seen in the removal of gid hanasheh from an Olah on the Mizbeach to preserve the korban's dignity.
  4. Anatomical Basis: Halacha can be fundamentally rooted in specific anatomical features, as with the "כף הירך" for birds.

Takeaway

The gid hanasheh prohibition, rooted in Yaakov's struggle, is a microcosm of halachic complexity, demonstrating the interplay of scriptural interpretation, logical deduction, and practical application across diverse contexts, from the Temple to the kitchen, and highlighting the delicate balance between din and minhag, and specific and general rulings.

Citations

Back to lesson library

derekhlearning.com